TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the AY 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee an individual e-filed his return of income for the AY 2014-15 admitting a total income of Rs. 29,94,110/- on 1/4/2015. The return was summarily processed U/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices U/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notices, the assessee's representative furnished the information as called for by the Ld. AO from time to time. The assessee was asked to produce Form- 26AS and books of account and copies of bank statements, purchase and sale deed copies of property etc., which the assessee filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e SRO value of Rs. 35 lakhs and computed the capital gains accordingly. Further, the Ld. AO also disallowed certain development expenses and assessed the business income at Rs. 68,95,888/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee's Representative submitted that the assessee was carrying on agricultural activities on "Metta" lands during the earlier two years and hence pleaded that the deduction U/s. 54B shall be allowed to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee but the assessee appeared only on 1/3/2019 and filed written submissions, copies of market value and VUDA approved plan before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f hearing." 4. Grounds No. 1 & 7 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 5. With respect to Grounds No. 2 and 5, the Ld. Authorized Representative [Ld. AR] argued that the assessee has taken the fair market value [FMV] at Rs. 90 lakhs per acre and has computed the cost of acquisition of the property. The Ld. AR further submitted that the value given by the SRO is for the purpose of stamp duty calculation. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the assessee has sold the plots at Rs 4500/- per sq. yd the subsequent sale price determining the FMV shall be a guiding factor for the purpose of cost of acquisition. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the assessee has rightly adopted Rs. 3000 per sq yd as cost of acquisition based on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he return as a HUF. Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded that the deduction U/s. 54B shall be allowed to the assessee. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 8. We find from the submissions made by the Ld. AR that the assessee failed to produce details with respect to admission of agricultural income in the earlier years while filing the returns of income. The assessee also failed to produce before us regarding the crops raised, yielding etc., to substantiate the claim U/s. 54B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) in his findings has held as follows: "5.3. Ground No.3 is related to denial of exemption claimed U/s. 54B of the IT Act. The appellant converted the said land received through partition deed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was also provided before the Ld. AO. He therefore pleaded that the deduction claimed U/s. 54F be allowed. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. 11. We find from the written submissions and the paper book submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee has claimed renovation expenses amounting to Rs. 5,25,390/- which were mostly though self-made vouchers. No cogent evidences are provided before us or before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. In the absence of any material evidence, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and hence no interference is required on this ground. Thus, this Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 12. With respect to Ground No.6 regarding restriction of land development....